Freedom of competition

16.7.2019

Question for written answer E-002300-19
to the Commission
Rule 130
Urmas Paet (Renew)

In 2018, UAB Skinest Baltija — an Estonian company formed under Lithuanian law — participated in two Lithuanian public procurement procedures for the supply of railway sleepers and railroad spare parts to the fully state-owned railroad company AB Lietuvos geležinkeliai. UAB Skinest Baltija was recognised as a winning tenderer, but was immediately eliminated from both procurement procedures in favour of a national tenderer pursuant to the Lithuanian law on the protection of objects of importance to ensuring national security. No actual reasons or references to factual circumstances were provided. EC law lays down an exhaustive list of exclusion criteria on the basis of which a tenderer might be excluded from public procurement procedures whose monetary value is above the EU threshold value. In this particular case, Lithuania made a decision to eliminate the company based on a non-exhaustive list of general and abstract criteria laid down in its own law, without providing any justification. The Lithuanian Court of Appeal has denied the company the possibility of referring the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

How will the Commission guarantee compliance with EU legislation and freedom of competition?

What actions does it plan to take in response to Lithuania’s blatant disregard for EU public procurement law in the interests of national protectionism?